Was thinking today about BS and Religion...

Just wondering (have to thank Epicurus for getting me started on this)... If dog created man in his own image, and dog 'is' not fallible (or was he supposed to be?), why would he have allowed Adam to eat the fruit unless he wished it so... an omnipotent god surely woud have such petty drives in check.?. It is a simple argument I know, however I cannot get over this irony. How could he wish himself to fail?

Please help the guide the sheep: Remember they are allowed their beliefs... just not to indulge their opportunistic desire to impose insidious fairy-tails on our children.
-jljahrig

Great points doone & Jared.
Your comments with regards to the arguments of those past are well received however their experiences (though historically valid) are contemporary not valid: today's standards no longer require a religion to rationalize proper etiquette, behavior and morale (where once hope and survival relied on word of mouth)

Chess is a great game however why use it as an analogy when speaking of a being who creates mass, volume, spiderwebs, snake-colon, running, stars... this is not an entity who would have less of an understanding of the psychological potential of his creations than his own minions. He would have known.
I can not dumb down the idea of a supreme being that could create the infinitesimally intricate mesh that we know as life... I can only discount the irrationality of believing that this being could not have known that Adam would eventually eat from a forbidden tree or be tempted.
Ergo; dog not only created evil... but wanted to create evil.

Omniscience: Even my most base psych peers can grasp the simple concepts of appetitive and aversive responses in a behavioral setting. If I could predict this (especially standing outside time and space)... surely so then can dog?
(I mean it's a frakking forbidden fruit)

Jared: my sentiments exactly cognitive dissonance is exactly where I was coming from.

My interest in the creation event is simply that without it doubt is cast upon the rest of the fable.

I think it convenient for religious zealots to rationalize their fundamentalism using a mock up of scientific philisophical banter, not proper athiests, please prescribe to Occam's philosophy when responding.